LOS ANGELES — Protesters rallied in dozens of cities Saturday as part of a global protest against seed giant Monsanto and the genetically modified food it produces, organizers said.
Organizers said "March Against Monsanto" protests were held in 52 countries and 436 cities, including Los Angeles where demonstrators waved signs that read "Real Food 4 Real People" and "Label GMOs, It's Our Right to Know."
Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply.
Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But critics say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment. The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe.
The `March Against Monsanto' movement began just a few months ago, when founder and organizer Tami Canal created a Facebook page on Feb. 28 calling for a rally against the company's practices.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/march-against-monsanto-gmo-protest_n_3336627.html
This aspect of our "diet" could be troubling. What are the pros and cons of this issue? For me, there is little information, perhaps on purpose, out there for the public to decide what to do about this issue.
One thing for sure, if smoking had been studied more perhaps its legality would have been in question and millions would be alive today.
What is the role of government on this issue?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/march-against-monsanto-gmo-protest_n_3336627.html
This aspect of our "diet" could be troubling. What are the pros and cons of this issue? For me, there is little information, perhaps on purpose, out there for the public to decide what to do about this issue.
One thing for sure, if smoking had been studied more perhaps its legality would have been in question and millions would be alive today.
What is the role of government on this issue?
The government (our "representatives") is gonna do what Monsanto's tens of millions in lobbying dollars tell it to do, which is no labels on GMOs.
ReplyDeleteWhy not put that lobbying money, or even a fraction of that lobbying money, into convincing us - the food-eating public - that a strain of corn genetically engineered to produce it's own pesticide is safe for human consumption?
What's the problem with that, Monsanto?
We have just run this topic into the ground.
DeleteI await one schread of concrete evidence supporting your contention that Monsanto is a detriment to world health and food supplies.
plunky I could demonstrate that you should have a lable placed on your forehead. But without evidence why would I?
Please move on to more entertaining conspiracies.
Once again, you're missing the point DI.
DeleteWhy spend the many millions on lobbying? Why not just spend a fraction of that money on a PR campaign or to post a study to show and you and I that GMOs are not harmful for human consumption?
If it's truly the non-issue that you & Monsanto say it is, what's the big deal?
And no, I'm not on the rag in case you were curious ...
Because their are obviously people with some kind of mental block to the issue...
DeleteIf nothing else... exponents man, exponents!
Rice on a chessboard:
According to an old legend, vizier Sissa Ben Dahir presented an Indian King Sharim with a beautiful, hand-made chessboard. The king asked what he would like in return for his gift and the courtier surprised the king by asking for one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third etc. The king readily agreed and asked for the rice to be brought. All went well at first, but the requirement for 2 n − 1 grains on the nth square demanded over a million grains on the 21st square, more than a million million (aka trillion) on the 41st and there simply was not enough rice in the whole world for the final squares. (from Swirski, 2006)
French children are told a story in which they imagine having a pond with water lily leaves floating on the surface. The lily population doubles in size every day and if left unchecked will smother the pond in 30 days, killing all the other living things in the water. Day after day the plant seems small and so it is decided to leave it to grow until it half-covers the pond, before cutting it back. They are then asked, on what day that will occur. This is revealed to be the 29th day, and then there will be just one day to save the pond. (From Meadows et al. 1972, p. 29 via Porritt 2005)
Unchecked, government supported, contract controlled exponential destruction of all other genetic varieties of the same plant....
Obviously the only thing you took on in our last discussion, (well, I really couldn't call it much of a discussion.. more like a dissertation to a sleeping audience) was the word maricherry.....
Here is an example of why the logic used to create GM products is flawed....
DeleteGM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Elegant Scott, but have you proof that the Bt genes in Monsanto's product have killed or harmed one solitary person? Zzzzzzzz
DeleteAnd plunky, I'm so glad you're well. The studies have been done on the scientific side, we await proof from the doomsayers to the contrary. I suppose a PR campaign would be entertaining but what the hell will that accomplish?
Angie, remember Y2K, bird flu, swine flu, killer bees, global cooling, global warming, climate change, yada, yada, yada,,,? At the end of the day where's the f---in facts?
A prolonged decline in solar output will begin sometime around 2040 and subject the Earth to global cooling that will last 200-250 years, scientists at Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory report.
Delete"Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease,” explained Pulkovo scientist Yuri Nagovitsyn. “The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.
Nagovitsyn said the cooling will be substantial, though not quite as strong as the cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum in the depths of the Little Ice Age during the late 1600s.
The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century,” said Nagovitsyn.
Nagovitsyn explained that variations in solar output are a significant factor in global climate change.
“Once solar activity declines, the temperature drops,” Nagovitsyn noted.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/04/29/russian-scientists-predict-onset-global-cooling
Funny you should mention it. If you are into reading clinical test results... released just this month....
Deletehttp://esciencecentral.org/journals/JHTD/JHTD-1-104.pdf
Of course it doesn’t answer your question directly because at the end of the day it is only mice.... but we have lived under years of saturated fat bashing that came from force feeding rabbits (they couldn’t even pick an animal that was carnivorous) saturated fat to justify arterial inflammation which lead to the great cholesterol evil which earns diet companies and pharmaceuticals billions every year and yet, cholesterol can be proven at best to be no more than a marker for heart and arterial diseases... The interesting thing is that main stream medicine ignores reams of data and research to the contrary. Of course we shouldn’t allow inconvenient test results to stand it the way of corporate progress.
It is interesting that this discussion always centers on those who have concerns proving that it might cause harm. Given that this product is pervasive, ever expanding, ultimately uncontrollable and affects the worlds food supply you can’t tell me any studies that are not industry generated that prove the products safety when applied against the single gene additive, gene stacking interactions and these deliberate mutations effect on the environment, animal life and humans. Can you show me how our own government KNOWS the safety of these products and ultimately who is in charge of their approval.
I get little confidence in the integrity of this company in particular when they say:
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job."
Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications
In an industry that has spokespersons that say:
“The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with genetically engineered organisms] that there’s nothing you can do about it, you just sort of surrender.”
Don Westfall, vice-president of Promar International
Given that Monsanto has been the purveyor so such illustrious products as:
PCB’s
DDT
Dioxin
Agent Orange
Petroleum Based Fertilizer
Aspertame
I just do not understand where your head is at with regard to any corporate responsibility but either you expect honest, responsible companies or you want must indulge a government full of regulation to keep companies from creating products that kill and mame... especially when the company knows full well that they kill and cause injury.
Name one person who has been harmed or has died as a result of Monsanto's seed program. Not one of you can. In the mean time millions are fed, millions lead better lives.
DeleteI know, I know, you don't promote more people on the planet. Plan B and inside and outside the womb abortions have eliminated in multiples more lives than all of your horror list above,,,and yet not a whimper for those babies lives.
You bang on about free market principles and have a real problem with the government forcing you to buy healthcare or be penalized through Obamacare but your incessant belief that the public should be forced to buy this stuff until THEY PROVE IT UNSAFE puts you squarely in the big government/corporatist camp. The ability for a corporation to force a person to buy a product when they don't want it belies your tea party stance.... or at least the stance of the real original tea party protests.
DeleteHere is a parallel story where industry, tinkering with nature and government stonewalled legitimate research with really bad results.
wnside.org.sg/title/mad.htm
"know, I know, you don't promote more people on the planet. Plan B and inside and outside the womb abortions have eliminated in multiples more lives than all of your horror list above,,,and yet not a whimper for those babies lives."
DeleteWe have already done this one before but just to reiterate:
So not producing as much poor quality food as necessary to not only sustain but indeed encourage a growing tax base and expanding market... er.. I mean, population that by any measure is past being highly detrimental to most ecosystems around the world and its resources is now a euphemism for abortion. So a father, only able to feed a small family a good quality diet is remiss because he doesn’t feed them cheap food and procreate more? A truly capitalist approach to a liberals view of welfare....
"the public should be forced to buy this stuff until THEY PROVE IT UNSAFE "
DeleteNumber one, the public is not forced to buy anything. If they are so concerned then they can substitute other eating habits. Vegan's do not eat meat,,etc.
Number two, what if it is not proved unsafe? Do we restrict food supply on a theory that it is unsafe?
Number three, "population that by any measure is past being highly detrimental to most ecosystems around the world",,,once again we expose your anti-life disposition.
Number four, "So not producing as much poor quality food",,,that is your opinion.
"the public should be forced to buy this stuff until THEY PROVE IT UNSAFE "
Delete“Number one, the public is not forced to buy anything. If they are so concerned then they can substitute other eating habits. Vegan's do not eat meat,,etc.”
As long as I can avoid eating meat, dairy or grains I shouldn’t have too much of a problem avoiding the stuff but then again, they have vegetables in their sights.
“Number two, what if it is not proved unsafe? Do we restrict food supply on a theory that it is unsafe?”
What if we had some real research except for that presented by the very industry that wants to sell the product.... what if the experts in the government weren’t revolving door industry executives that gave the approval.... what if we actually had an honest government.
Number three, "population that by any measure is past being highly detrimental to most ecosystems around the world",,,once again we expose your anti-life disposition.
I would assume that your banging on about this point comes from a Judao-Christian perspective. I would suggest that you read the vast number of comments in almost every book of the bible about Gods requirement for mans stewardship of the earth and its plants and animals..... Man was never meant to plunder and ruin the plant and Noah didn’t take two of everything so that we could kill them all for our own personal pleasure and.... glorification or is your view of ‘stewardship’ the same distorted view of peaceful Christianity that pressed the Crusades killing how many?
Number four, "So not producing as much poor quality food",,,that is your opinion."
It’s not my opinion; it is fact that soil depletion has vastly reduced the nutritional quality of most all foods. AgraBusiness does not replenish 80% of the minerals removed from the soil and these minerals are necessary for the plants ability to synthesize nutrients. So that part is indisputable. Another fact that is indisputable is that whenever western aid enters a third world country, 20 years later they develop a diabetes problem. They are still poor so they aren’t eating the meats, dairy and sugar that developed countries are.... It is indeed my opinion that grain is a root cause of much of our world health problems..... That opinion is growing among doctors... but the grain, food, pharmaceutical and government won’t tell you that.
Just like when they did away from labeling where a food was made many companies realized that labeling "Made in USA" became a huge selling point - so will anti GMO-labeling. Companies will catch on real quick. The problem is or will be the availability of non-GMO ingredients. I am more worried about the total supply - or substantial percentage of certain highly used ingredients. Today we have a choice but we may not in the near future.
ReplyDeleteAngie, we have been labeling cigarettes for over forty years and yet the government collects more in cig taxes today than any time in history. We all know inhaling smoke is bad for us, why do we need the fed middlemen?
DeleteBasing labeling decisions on theories or environmental feelings is a socialist's wet dream.
Whether the GMO's are "safe" or not is secondary to me. What bothers me more is that the Monsanto's of the world are buying off legislators to block them from needing to label GMO products for what they are. Why, as a consumer, am I not allowed to know this information? Why am I not allowed to make an informed decision? THAT is what Monsanto is buying.
ReplyDeleteWho is to say that any seed in the world is "pure." Define "pure" in the context of this argument.
DeleteSeeds mutate continuously, what is the baseline for a "pure" seed? The year 2000? 1900? 1800? 1000? AD? BC?
People have been improving seeds for thousands of years perhaps not at this advanced scientific level, but seed stock has been modified over the ages.
Plants themselves mutate and improve or die off over the ages.
Again, where's the beef? Or are we chasing our tails again with some futuristic doomsday model?
William,
DeleteWe rarely disagree, but this time we are not talking about a machine, we are talking about a life form. I do not think that life forms are patentable. Man has been saving his seeds since the dawn of civilization for future plantings, now they can't. What if we have another "dust bowl" scenario and the farmers can't afford Frankenseeds for next years potential planting?
Mike,
We rarely agree, but on this issue I will stand with you. I never buy seafood or anything else made in China or other countries with massive pollution and without labeling guidelines. I should be able to support products without Monsanto's involvement if I was only able to know which Frankenfoods to avoid.
Now, that being said, some labeling guidelines should be eliminated as over-regulatory like food pyramids and daily allowances. Anyone who doesn't know that eating donuts and hamburgers as a regular diet probably needs to the way of Darwin for natural selection. I want the bare minimum of government, while at the same time, I NEED to know if someone outside of my personal garden is screwing with my food.
I knew the food topics would become a hit here
DeleteGotta, nine people out of nine on the supreme court disagree with you.
Delete@DI,
DeleteThis isn't a Lib or Con thing. Many people really do care to know what they're eating.
I personally would like to know if my green beans have been genetically engineered to sprout legs in case they need to move into better light. I would very much like to have that info before I decide to feed it to my children.
I believe I have that right. I believe you have that right as well, whether you feel you need it or not.
I believe we all have the right to make an informed (or misinformed, as you may view it) decision as to what we ingest.
And if I and the rest of us who are concerned about Frankenfoods are nothing but paranoid crackpots, what is the big freakin' deal about slapping a label on it and shutting us the fuck up?
Why spend literally hundreds of millions over the span of a decade plus in lobbying dollars to prevent a label - much, much more than it would cost to put a "GMO" sticker on a package? I mean, what is really going on here? Jesus Christ, even companies that sell bottled WATER print the ingredients and the nutritional info on the label!!!
I've been reading your posts and bantering with you for a long time now going back to MW days. We disagree a lot but usually there's a consistent thread, an admirable idealism, that you cling to no matter how factually/rationally flawed or hopelessly out-debated you are. I've grown to find it charming in a weird way and just by virtue of your persistence, you've earned my respect.
But never in all the years of our back & forth have I ever seen you shill so hard for corporate power (in this case, corporate power over our sustenance) or for one corporation in particular - all your TEA Party idealism, your constitution quoting, your battle cries for lost freedoms be damned when it comes to this issue. I mean, you're essentially stumping for fascist control of our food supply.
Exactly how many shares of MON do you own?
pfunky, if you want to know what's in your green beans ask your grocer. If they don't know find another grocer.
DeleteInstead of looking at this discussion as me being a shill for corporate America think instead of my arguments as a rail against the framing of a false argument. BIG-ECO has been framing arguments for over 40 years. Just because they do doesn't mean I can't think for myself and question their motives.
Where in the f__gg_in Constitution does it say anything about the right to have f___in labels on every fr__kin thing.
Grow the hell up pfunky and DO YOUR OWN THINKING and protect your own family. BIG BROTHER, BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG ECO aren't in it for you.
And don't get me started on bottled water. Geez,,,
And I don't need a label on your forehead to know that you're a lovable crackpot, I just do.
Actually William, the Supreme Court has never decided on the efficacy, morality or safety of manmade genetic products of any sort. The 9-0 decision was a ruling that defended the rights of the patent holder to protection of a lawfully obtained patent. It did not decide the validity or morality of the patent.
ReplyDeleteThat decision with regards to living organisms was a split 5-4 decision decided in 1980 by a court that yet again did not decide the validity or morality of the patent but if the patent should be awarded according to congresses definition of a patent.
Chief Justice Burger wrote:
Finding that Congress had intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man," he concluded that:
Judged in this light, respondent's micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is ... to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter—a product of human ingenuity.
So no, there wasn’t a unanimous decision giving blessing to frankenfood.... Given that congress is probably the most well paid legislative body on this planet, I doubt seriously that congress will ever seriously take up the issue of the ethics of allowing such products on the market without absolute proof of their safety.
I suggest we restrict the use of H2O. It may be proven unsafe in the future.
Delete"I suggest we restrict the use of H2O. It may be proven unsafe in the future."
DeleteI think because you have an untenable position that you spout stuff that is ridiculous... But since you felt the need to use the natural creation of water.... what about marijuana... I guess for that one we will just have to wait for consumers to prove that one safe.. Huh.... but then again, we don’t want too small of government now do we?
I'm sure scott that the supreme court would have voted 9-0 for patent protection for a product that was killing people.
DeleteBut then again, you can't name a single poor soul that has been killed or harmed can you ECO BABBLER.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWilliam,
DeleteHere you go regarding your beloved Monsanto..........
Monsanto is the company that allows farmers to grow more food with less land, water and energy. But it is also the company that brought us products we now know were far more dangerous than advertised, including the insecticide DDT, the toxic industrial chemicals known as PCBs, and the Vietnam-era defoliant Agent Orange, which poisoned our own soldiers with dioxins. Monsanto also brought us saccharine — sweet, yet artificial, and known to cause cancer in laboratory rats.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/monsanto-sows-seeds-of-protest-2013-05-29?link=home_carousel
6. “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT… In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.” [National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent
DeleteProgress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]
7. It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years. [Africa News, January 27, 1999]
II. ADVOCACY AGAINST DDT. DDT was demagogued out of use.
10.Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote “Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.” DeWitt’s 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the “control”" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt’s report that “control” pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.
11. Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.” [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
16. Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility. [21st Century, Spring 1992]
DeleteIII. EPA HEARINGS. DDT was banned by an EPA administrator who ignored the decision of his own administrative law judge.
Delete17. Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.” [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
18. Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus’ aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. [Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]
19. After reversing the EPA hearing examiner’s decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just “internal memos.” Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus’ “Opinion and Order on DDT.”
V. CANCER. DDT was alleged to be a liver carcinogen in Silent Spring and a breast carcinogen in Our Stolen Future.
Delete26. Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.” [J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]
27. A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. “Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer.”
[Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 Jun;8(6):525-32]
28. To prospectively evaluate relationships of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs with breast cancer, a case-control study nested in a cohort using the Columbia, Missouri Breast Cancer Serum Bank. Women donated blood in 1977- 87, and during up to 9.5 years follow-up, 105 donors who met the inclusion criteria for the current study were diagnosed with breast cancer. For each case, two controls matched on age and date of blood collection were selected. Five DDT analogs, 13 other organochlorine pesticides, and 27 PCBs were measured in serum. Results of this study do not support a role for organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in breast cancer etiology. [Cancer Causes Control 1999 Feb;10(1):1-11]
29. A pooled analysis examined whether exposure to DDT was associated with the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among male farmers. Data from three case-control studies from four midwestern states in the United States (Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas) were pooled to carry out analyses of 993 cases and 2918 controls. No strong consistent evidence was found for an association between exposure to DDT and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. [Occup Environ Med 1998 Aug;55(8):522-7]
30. “We measured plasma levels of DDE and PCBs prospectively among 240 women who gave a blood sample in 1989 or 1990 and who were subsequently given a diagnosis of breast cancer before June 1, 1992. We compared these levels with those measured in matched control women in whom breast cancer did not develop. Data on DDE were available for 236 pairs, and data on PCBs were available for 230 pairs. Our data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to [DDT] and PCBs increases the risk of breast cancer.” [N Engl J Med 1997;337:1253-8]
Delete31. “… weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer.” [http://www.nejm.org/content/1997/0337/0018/1303.asp]
32. To examine any possible links between exposure to DDE, the persistent metabolite of the pesticide dicophane (DDT), and breast cancer, 265 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 341 controls matched for age and center were studied. Women with breast cancer had adipose DDE concentrations 9.2% lower than control women. No increased risk of breast cancer was found at higher concentrations. The odds ratio of breast cancer, adjusted for age and center, for the highest versus the lowest fourth of DDE distribution was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.21) and decreased to 0.48 (0.25 to 0.95; P for trend = 0.02) after adjustment for body mass index, age at first birth, and current alcohol drinking. Adjustment for other risk factors did not materially affect these estimates. This study does not support the hypothesis that DDE increases risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Europe. [BMJ 1997 Jul 12;315(7100):81-5]
33. No correlation at the population level can be demonstrated between exposures to DDT and the incidence of cancer at any site. It is concluded that DDT has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at previous exposure levels, within the statistical limitations of the data. [IARC Sci Publ 1985;(65):107-17]
34. Syrian golden hamsters were fed for their lifespan a diet containing 0, 125, 250 and 500 parts per million (ppm) of DDT. The incidence of tumor bearing animals was 13% among control females and ranged between 11-20% in treated females. In control males 8% had tumors. The incidence of tumor bearing animals among treated males ranged between 17-28%. [Tumori 1982 Feb 28;68(1):5-10]
35. None of 35 workers heavily exposed to DDT (600 times the average U.S. exposure for 9 to 19 years) developed cancer. [Laws, ER. 1967. Arch Env Health 15:766-775]
36. Men who voluntarily ingested 35 mgs of DDT daily for nearly two years were carefully examined for years and “developed no adverse effects.” [Hayes, W. 1956. JAMA 162:890-897]
37. DDT was found to reduce tumors in animals. [Laws, ER. 1971. Arch. Env Health, 23:181-184; McLean, AEM & EK McLean. 1967. Proc Nutr Soc 26;Okey, AB. 1972. Life Sciences 11:833-843;Sillinskas, KC & AB Okey. 1975. J Natl Cancer Inst 55:653- 657, 1975]
38. Rodent tests for a carcinogenic effect of DDT, DDE and TDE produced equivocal results despite extremely high doses (642 ppm of DDT, 3,295 ppm of TDE and 839 ppm of DDE). [National Toxicology Program, TR-131 Bioassays of DDT, TDE, and p,p'-DDE for Possible Carcinogenicity (CAS No. 50-29-3, CAS No. 72-54-8, CAS No. 72-55-9)]
VII. BALD EAGLES. DDT was blamed for the decline in the bald eagle population.
Delete66. Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 — 25 years before widespread use of DDT. [Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]
67. Alaska paid over $100,000 in bounties for 115,000 bald eagles between 1917 and 1942. [Anon. Science News Letter, July 3, 1943]
68. The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937. [Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]
69. After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]
70. No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs. [Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]
71. Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues.
http://junkscience.com/1999/07/26/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/
"I'm sure scott that the supreme court would have voted 9-0 for patent protection for a product that was killing people."
DeleteThis is a telling statement from a constitutional, small government type such as you..... While I can’t quite tell from the statement, you were very close to indicating that it would have been fair play had they deviated from the scope of the case, which was the validity of patent protection, if the product was in known to be dangerous. While I still contend that Thomas should have recused himself, any decision by the court that deviated from the question would have been judicial activism... No?
I will give you kudos for the ddt question... I intend to read more on the subject. While it is possible, on the internet, to find articles that support a person’s contention on just about any subject, it would seem that I am not the most enlightened on this subject. I made some assumptions that may not be correct. I am not, as you claim, an ECO babbler, but I do think that we own a bit more due diligence and responsibility to this rock we call home because the definitions of profit and progress are not always as clear cut as some people would have them to be.
Scott, Sometimes we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because good ideas sometimes are "big ideas" doesn't mean they are wrong ideas.
DeleteThe ECO PROPAGANDA MILL began in the 60's and has been using our schools and media to promote themselves ever since. Hey, I once owned a company that retrofitted buildings to save energy, and live in a passive solar home that I built that features the best ideas available at that time (Early 80's).
While many problems certainly needed and need fixing, many of these so called "truths" have been debunked but remain buried deeply in the public mindset.
This topic is as good a place as any to review and reflect on these subjects. Correct some fallacies, and enforce the thinking behind others based on "Science" not "Junk Science."
I read you, and others here on the board that I respect, loud and clear on your concerns about GMO'S. Of course we need to be watchful and mindful of possible impending disasters but we don't have to go making them up out of whole cloth. We have many more current real problems that need solving.
I don’t have and never have had a problem with the development of any technology that is beneficial to man but I do have a huge problem with having that technology foisted on me when I did not ask for it. I do have a problem with the roll out of this for profit technology without proper testing because, as I have said before... you can’t just unplug it.... you can’t stop using it and it will just go away and every new iteration of a product from the biogen industry is not just some new product... it is a compound of the last product and all products before it....
DeleteI don’t care how BIG the CEO of Monsanto things their idea is and I don’t care that it was conceived with good intention... what I care about is if it goes a rye... and someone will eventually make a product that adversely interacts with some other gene splice...I happens in drug interactions all the time.... but unlike drugs, it can’t be taken back.
It’s not the technology that is the problem; it is the total focus on quarterly results that bothers me in this instance. A company can off shore all of its jobs in the name of profit but you are still alive and can retaliate by refusing to buy their product but just like the mortgage brokers, today’s farmers are looking at their bottom line and exploiting Monsanto’s own version of an investment bankers derivative... a 700 trillion dollar yoke around the necks of every hard working person in the world.....but even that won’t poison you....
....And this is precisely what I am talking about:
DeleteUnapproved Monsanto GMO Wheat Found in Oregon
A strain of genetically engineered wheat never approved for sale or consumption by authorities was found sprouting on a farm in Oregon, the Agriculture Department said Wednesday.
Biotechnology company Monsanto developed the wheat years ago by but never used it because of market opposition to genetically engineered crops. The most recent field test of such wheat was in 2005.
Roughly half of the U.S. wheat crop is exported, and most of it is used to make food, including breads, pastries, and noodles.
USDA officials said the Food and Drug Administration determined that there is no health risk to humans from the modified strain.
"Hopefully, our trading partners will be very understanding," Michael Scuse, the acting deputy agriculture secretary, said at a briefing. Major customers for U.S. wheat had been informed of the discovery over the past day, he said.
Genetically modified crops cannot be grown legally in the U.S. unless the federal government approves them after a review to ensure that they pose no threat to the environment or to people.
Monsanto entered four strains of glyphosate-resistant wheat for approval in the 1990s, but regulators never provided a final ruling because the company decided it had no market.
The genetically modified wheat sprouted this spring in a field that grew winter wheat last year. When the farmer sprayed the so-called volunteer plants with a glyphosate herbicide, some of them unexpectedly survived. Samples were then sent to Oregon State University and to the USDA for analysis.
Testing showed the wheat was a Monsanto-developed strain resistant to glyphosate. The company is assisting in the investigation, the department said, adding that Monsanto tested Roundup Ready wheat varieties—those resistant to the widely used herbicide—in 16 states from 1998 to 2005.
Scuse and Michael Firko, who oversees the USDA's biotechnology approval process, said the department was looking into how the strain appeared on the farm when no seeds should have been available for several years.
"I think it will have a significant impact," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, which battled to keep genetically modified wheat out of the marketplace.
The Senate last week rejected by a wide margin a measure to let states order labeling of food made with genetically engineered crops. Cummins said the discovery of the rogue plants in Oregon would accelerate efforts to require GE food labels.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100774325
Let's continue to follow this story.
Deletehttp://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-30/genetically-modified-wheat-isnt-supposed-to-exist-dot-so-what-is-it-doing-in-oregon
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2013/05/31/illegal-genetically-modified-wheat-found-in-oregon-farm-should-we-be-worried/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/usda-gmo-wheat-monsanto_n_3366841.html
DeleteYou posted these links with a point?....
DeleteScott I suggest we watch and see how this situation plays out. We discussed earlier that seeds will cross pollinate.
DeleteTest fields were used earlier, a number of years ago.
Test fields remain in use in a couple of states.
The coincidence of this farm incident coming on the heels of last weeks marches.
After all the incident was in Oregon. Not exactly a capitalist leaning state.
The wheat seeds were discontinued based on the belief that a market did not exist. Not because they harmed anyone or anything.
I have an open mind. Let's see how this plays out. Let's see how differing media sources cover the incident.
Monsanto tested glyphosate-resistant wheat in 16 states, including Oregon, from 1998 to 2005. The last Oregon trial was in 2001, according to the USDA, and Monsanto ultimately withdrew its application to have the modified variety approved after it became clear export markets didn't want it.
DeleteThe company said it closed the testing program in a "rigorous, well-documented and audited" process that should have left no modified plants or seed remaining.
To ensure the plants didn't emerge after the testing, modified seeds were burned, buried six feet underground or shipped back to Monsanto, said Bob Zemetra, a crop scientist who worked on the Monsanto fields in Idaho.
Wide "no-plant" areas were maintained around test sites to prevent pollen movement from the modified wheat to other crops. Testing sites were checked two years after the trials for the presence of "volunteer" wheat plants that might have popped up.
The GM being tested was a spring variety, the Wheat found in the Oregon field was a winter variety. Flowering at different times makes gene flow more improbable.
Delete
Deletesimbadogg
Exactly. My gf does a lot of ’’reading’’ online, which basically means she hears shit from her friends on facebook. And I told her one day, I love how people bitch about GMO shiet, not knowing that even before there were people in lab coats creating GMO food in a lab, we were doing it in the wild.
For example, I pointed out that in my archaeology class that I took over a summer 2-3 years ago, maize (corn) in america looked like this before it was domesticated.
It essentially went from this
to this
to this
that was selective breeding as well, nothing appalling about it.
http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/cornhusk.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosinte
Jun 1, 2013 | 4:37 AM Reply
"Let's see how this plays out. Let's see how differing media sources cover the incident."
DeleteWhile, as you know, I am no fan of Monsanto's business model or it affiliation with the government, I don't expect to see a lot of reputable, unbiased articles on this...
"I love how people bitch about GMO shiet, not knowing that even before there were people in lab coats creating GMO food in a lab, we were doing it in the wild."
Yeah, but they weren't trying to cross tilly the tulip with dolly the sheep to create the worlds first woolly tulip either....
I simply want to know what I am putting into my body. I am as free market as anyone on this board and am against almost everything that the federal government does outside of it's Constitutional authority. Buyer beware is fine, but how can be aware of whether something I buy like tortilla chips is full of GMO's unless it is somewhere on the package? I could care less if manufacturers put asbestos in ice cream, rat poison in tooth paste, or lead in paint, I just want to see it on the package so I can choose something else.
ReplyDeleteDebunking dioxin hysteria courtesy of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Prompted by Ben & Jerry’s claim on its ice cream packaging that there is no safe level of exposure to dioxin, Milloy and Dr. Michael Gough tested Ben & Jerry’s World’s Best Vanilla ice cream for dioxin and found that a single scoop contained 200 times the amount of dioxin that the EPA said was safe, thereby debunking dioxin hysteria once and for all. Around the time the study was published, the EPA was proposing to classify dioxin as 10 times more carcinogenic than previously considered. That would have made a single scoop of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream contain 2,000 times more dioxin than the EPA considered to be safe. Milloy testified before the EPA Science Advisory Board about the study, which had also been presented at the poster session of the Dioxin 2000 conference. The study also made the front page of the Detroit News upon its release. Ben & Jerry’s howled about the study and JunkScience.com on its web site for years.
DeleteGough M and Milloy S, “Dioxin in Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream“, JunkScience.com, November 8, 1999.
“Food rules out of sync, study says: Dioxin in ice cream safe, but far exceeds federal standards’, Detroit News, November 7, 1999, page A1.
“Ben & Jerry’s dioxin surprise,” National Post (Canada), November 11, 1999.
A Scoop of Debunkey Monkey, Please, FOXNews.com, July 8, 2000.
2000 CERES Report, Section 6, Environmental Performance, BenJerry.com, 2000.
Equating food science with terrorism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.legitgov.org/US-probes-source-GMO-wheat-Oregon-importers-suspend-orders
The Daily Kos weighs in:
Deletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/02/1213234/-GM-wheat-in-Oregon-may-end-Monsanto-Madness
ad4hk2004@yahoo.com7 days ago
ReplyDeleteWithout GMO hybrids you would be starving.
Non GMO crops do not have the yield to feed the world.
But hey, go ahead and ban GMO - and make me rich.
You see, I'm a farmer.
I want you to ban GMO so that the scarcity of food makes my corn sell for $50 a bushel.
Ban it, pleeeeeze ban it.
tony s7 days ago
you are crazy people you worry about gM food that changes singles genes and breeders change 1000s of genes at a time with bigger effects on the crop. You have no idea. Your ignorance is overwhelming. Give me one person who has been physically harmed by GM crops?
1. Allergies are not caused by GM food - any new proteins added are tested first but organic breeders don't do any testing .
2. Bernie Sanders wants states right here but not in other cases where he doesn't like the choice there he wanted federal to supersede..two faced.
3. There is zero chance of this ever going federal wide -- its a way to get GM banned and its got nothing to do with labeling rights and the organizers have admitted this.
4. The organizers are funded by a few industrial millionaires making their millions off organic food and they can't justify their product enough, and one snake oil supplement sales man Mercola - cited by the FDA for bad labeling ! Another two faced #$@%.
5. I was in New orleans over the weekend and there was one ----1 protester like one of those crazy religious nuts -thats what this is crazy
crockerherrick7 days ago
The way things stand now there's nothing preventing me from knowing or finding out what's in the food I'm eating. This legislation is nothing more than an attack on Monsanto, a convenient target for the left on which to blame the world's ills. Monsanto employs over 21,000 people and is one of the best companies to work for, ranked highest in human rights and employee practices. We need to think about the unexpected consequences of the laws we pass many of which are unnecessary.
Monsanto Protests
ReplyDeleteOpponents of genetically modified crops held protests against Monsanto last month as they push for state and federal bills that would require foods containing engineered ingredients to be labeled, citing food-safety and environmental concerns. The National Research Council and other scientific groups have said crops with added genes are no more risky than those developed with conventional methods.
Some Monsanto opponents may have planted seeds they illegally saved from a field trial to cause trade disruptions and build opposition to gene-altered food, said Val Giddings, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based non-profit think tank. Field trials of modified crops are often destroyed by activists in Europe, he said.
“What we are starting to do is knock down all the competing possibilities, and one of those that remain standing, the sore thumb sticking up, involves something deliberate,” Giddings, who helped regulate engineered crops at the USDA for eight years in the 1990s, said today by phone. “It’s a really ugly hypothesis because you don’t like to think people can do something that evil and malicious.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/monsanto-says-rogue-wheat-didn-t-contaminate-oregon-seed.html